never mind the text, just saying that texts tend to be bad and do not necessarily well represent scientific or other thinking.

Regarding proof, well, no i really dont know what you are alluding to. if matters you could explain.

Again, on the proof thing, if one could prove the parts of a theory, then you could prove the theory, dont you think so?

A scientist will never speak about proving things, or even about "facts", at least beyond something like 'it is a fact that this is the data that i got".

Proof just is not a part of science! Agreed on that?

Regarding evidence, nobody is ever going to be 100% objective. It is however, an ideal toward which all scientists should strive, tho people are people and not all do, i suppose. it is a tough discipline to look at the evidence not at oneself!

You would not say that all evidence of all kinds is entirely subjective, would you?

If you have heard "evolutionists" say biased things, I dont find that surprising.

Anyone can self tag as an "evolutionist". Few are likely to have the discipline or training to be actual scientists. And of course, people will be people, with all their faults, I dont know of any -ism or -ology that eliminates faults in people!Im sorry to hear that your physiology teacher said that. That is what that person said. He can only speak for himself and his opinion.

Thanks However I've talked with quite a few people on this subject... And the vast majority of people are abusive, when you call the evidence for the ToE into question. Yes it is part of human nature, as it is a defense mechanism... Someone is attacking a theory that is close to your beliefs, proving that theory wrong will in turn prove you wrong also.. Nobody likes being wrong

Anyway... What I meant with the proof thing was that I used the word proof instead of the word evidence, when I was talking about how evolution and creationism both use fossils as evidence for their claims. As what you said was right in regards to that you can't 100% prove a hypothesis.

Being objective with the evidence should be the bread and butter of any Science in general. Yes there are some who are objective, yet sadly, (from what I have heard and seen) this is a minority... This could be attributed to how we teach Science at school and University.. As I mentioned in the discussion board at Uni.

They should teach either both sides of the story or none, and instead teach the students how to make up their own mind.

If the education system could do that, and let people think for themselves and test the ToE on its own merits, (not because my teacher said so merit), then I envisage a whole lot less evolutionists in the next generation.

I say this with confidence as at the moment I am at University and I am getting Evolution shoved down my throat... Despite that the actual topic of evolution is next semester

Thanks However I've talked with quite a few people on this subject... And the vast majority of people are abusive, when you call the evidence for the ToE into question. Yes it is part of human nature, as it is a defense mechanism... Someone is attacking a theory that is close to your beliefs, proving that theory wrong will in turn prove you wrong also.. Nobody likes being wrong

Anyway... What I meant with the proof thing was that I used the word proof instead of the word evidence, when I was talking about how evolution and creationism both use fossils as evidence for their claims. As what you said was right in regards to that you can't 100% prove a hypothesis.

Ã‚Â being pedantic but I think I said theory, not hypothesis

Being objective with the evidence should be the bread and butter of any Science in general. Yes there are some who are objective, yet sadly, (from what I have heard and seen) this is a minority... This could be attributed to how we teach Science at school and University.. As I mentioned in the discussion board at Uni.

They should teach either both sides of the story or none, and instead teach the students how to make up their own mind.

If the education system could do that, and let people think for themselves and test the ToE on its own merits, (not because my teacher said so merit), then I envisage a whole lot less evolutionists in the next generation.

I say this with confidence as at the moment I am at University and I am getting Evolution shoved down my throat... Despite that the actual topic of evolution is next semester

hi again!

i hope the vast majority of people are not abusive, but, whatever the number, a lot are. Republican / democrat, you name it.

Ive been subjected to a fair bit myself.. but... big city gal here... I know ya gotta be tough!

I dont think this applies to me...a theory that is close to your beliefs, proving that theory wrong will in turn prove you wrong also.. Nobody likes being wrong

I dont really conflate theory with "belief" or "faith", we have separate words for these things to keep their different meanings separate.

Since science works in large part thru falsification of theory, anyone who can properly be called a scientist should be, is, always open to and looking for ways to falsify whatever ideas he is working with. We all to some of it in our daily lives. Will this work, will this work, why didnt this work. i dont like being wrong on a test, but im open to being wrong in my ideas! I hope my brain never "fossilizes" in that regard! i just need to be shown.

I think we are probably in agreement in principle if not all details, about how science is not well taught. i know of an excellent author, (and nobel physicist) who has some really interesting insights on this. I can recommend if you like.Very highly recommended by me.

I am sorry you feel that evolution is being crammed down your throat.

I attended a church sponsored school myself, for a time, and got quite a dose of Christianity. I didnt appreciate it at the time, tho now i see that I learned quite a bit, and some of the concepts have certainly affected my approach to and understanding of life.

In the "teach both sides" dept, i think that any idea for which there is valid data should be welcome in a science class. i hope you will listen attentively to what is presented on whatever 'side' with the properly reasonable (and scientific) attitude of not putting the conclusion ahead of the evidence.

Regarding your OP..I don't really see why they persist in calling it a theory, since it can be dis-proven via many conventional modern scientific ways...

I have a couple of thoughts.

First, "they" in this case would consist of essentially the entire scientific community of the world. Those exceptions that I am aware of take their stance for religious reasons.

I think you are simply mistaken that the theory can be falsified in any of the ways you noted.

Think about it this way: If someone knew how the ToE could be thus falsified, someone somewhere would be more than willing to get his name noted as the one who sank it. Id guess he'd get a Nobel prize for it; but at the very least, he'd be cited as one who had made a great contribution to science.

You might when you have a chance, ask one of the physicists at the U there, if there is anything about thermodynamics that dis proves evolution. Likewise, in the chemistry dept. Etc. See what they say, and why.

I think the answer to your OP question would be basically this:

The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,.

i hope the vast majority of people are not abusive, but, whatever the number, a lot are.Ã‚Â Republican / democrat, you name it.

Ive been subjected to a fair bit myself.. but... big city gal here... I know ya gotta be tough!

I dont think this applies to me...a theory that is close to your beliefs, proving that theory wrong will in turn prove you wrong also.. Nobody likes being wrong

I dont really conflate theory with "belief" or "faith", we have separate words for these things to keep their different meanings separate.

Since science works in large part thru falsification of theory, anyone who can properly be called a scientist should be, is, always open to and looking for ways to falsify whatever ideas he is working with.Ã‚Â We all to some of it in our daily lives.Ã‚Â Will this work, will this work, why didnt this work.Ã‚Â i dont like being wrong on a test, but im open to being wrong in my ideas! I hope my brain never "fossilizes" in that regard! i just need to be shown.

I think we are probably in agreement in principle if not all details, about how science is not well taught.Ã‚Â i know of an excellent author, (and nobel physicist) who has some really interesting insights on this.Ã‚Â I can recommend if you like.Very highly recommended by me.

I am sorry you feel that evolution is being crammed down your throat.

I attended a church sponsored school myself, for a time, and got quite a dose of Christianity.Ã‚Â I didnt appreciate it at the time, tho now i see that I learned quite a bit, and some of the concepts have certainly affected my approach to and understanding of life.

In the "teach both sides" dept, i think that any idea for which there is valid data should be welcome in a science class.Ã‚Â i hope you will listen attentively to what is presented on whatever 'side' with the properly reasonable (and scientific) attitude of not putting the conclusion ahead of the evidence.

Regarding your OP..I don't really see why they persist in calling it a theory, since it can be dis-proven via many conventional modern scientific ways...

I have a couple of thoughts.

First, "they" in this case would consist of essentially the entire scientific community of the world.Ã‚Â Those exceptions that I am aware of take their stance for religious reasons.

I think you are simply mistaken that the theory can be falsified in any of the ways you noted.

Think about it this way:Ã‚Â If someone knew how the ToE could be thus falsified, someone somewhere would be more than willing to get his name noted as the one who sank it.Ã‚Â Id guess he'd get a Nobel prize for it; but at the very least, he'd be cited as one who had made a great contribution to science.

You might when you have a chance, ask one of the physicists at the U there, if there is anything about thermodynamics that dis proves evolution.Ã‚Â Likewise, in the chemistry dept.Ã‚Â Etc.Ã‚Â See what they say, and why.Ã‚Â

I think the answer to your OP question would be basically this:

The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,.

You don't need to apologise for other peoples actions. But I do apreciate the sentiment I used to believe in evolution myself, however now knowing the faults in the logic I do not beleive in it anymore.

Yes Science is defined by observations and testable results... However this does not apply to evolution. Seriously, (I know you won't believe me), but this is what happens. Logic gets thrown out of the door, why else would such a theory be given 150yrs to attempt to prove itself? I am sure most, if not all theories are not given such leniency.

I do disagree with your final sentence, and I would ask that you read the entirety of this thread before repling to this thanks.

"The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."

As we know, it takes only one thing to disprove a theory... However I have given my own example of an evolutionary flaw, and offer you a gamut of faults of evolution for us to discuss. Choose at your own pleasure

Biology: Mutation, Natural Selection and the process of NEW genetic information

Chemistry: Abiogeneisis

Physics: Cosmic Evolution / Designer of Worlds / Order or Chaos?

Mathematics: Probability of proteins forming naturally

Palentology: Intermediate fossils, (or lack thereof)

Symbiotic Relationships: This comes from the information I have been taught in 1st year Physiology, (logic added )

A while ago I asked a question about a symbiotic relationship in human organs. The stomach digests foodstuff with acid and digestion enzymes. The intestines contain small villi structures that increase the surface area for absorbtion of nutrients. Now when the stomach passes the digested foodstuff to the intestine, it signals the pancreas to flood the access point, (duodenum), with Sodium Hydroxide to cancel the Hydrochloric acid of the stomach... Why? Because the intestines are not designed to cope with a low Ph like the stomach. So how did this symbiotic relationship of digestion come about? Or more simply, which of these organs "evolved" first? (Now this is based on the premise of evolution that it takes millions of years and small changes to produce complex living systems)

1. Stomach: The organism can digest food, but is unable to absorb nutrients due to the mucus barrier of the stomach lining preventing a passover.

2. Intestines: The organism is able to absorb nutrients, however functionality is low due to the food stuff not being digested / broken down at a molecular level.

3. Stomach + Intestines: The organism can digest food and absorb nutrients effectively however, this is short lived, (like the organisms lifespan), as without a pancreas to produce NaOH the intestines burn out from gastric acid and death ensures

3. Pancreas: Organism can effectively neutralise the acid from the stomach.. (if it had one ).. But is unable to digest food or absord the nutrients from said undigested food.

Now not only do these three organs need to work together for us to be able to digest and take up nutrients effectively. But also there needs to be a transportation system and a distribution system too.

Distribution: The liver distributes the primary nutrient, glucose into the blood stream returning to the heart. Where it passes it to the rest of the body. The liver is VERY important in maintaing homeostatis, as it lets the glucose into the blood gradually according to the needs of the body, the rest is stored as glycogen. Without the liver our brain will trip out and won't know what is happening, not to mention that we would have varying degrees of glucose in out bloodstream.

Transport: The veins of the intestine transport the nutrients to the liver. Thus impling that there needs to be a functioning heart and blood vessels to be able to distribute the nutrients around. Without a transport system, the rest of the organs are useless.

So what have we learned here? For a functional digestive system we need

1: a stomach2: a pancreas3: some intestines4: a liver5: a heart6: blood vessels to all these organs, (at least), and the other parts of the body7: a brain to facilitate these processes, (this goes without saying lol)

So I fail to see how these organs could have developed over millions of years, when they all work together and a loss of one of these organs will result in death of the organism. Thus it could be said that the human digestive system is irreducibly complex.

If you feel I am wrong, please prove me so with observed scientific evidence, as I have proved my point with scientific evidence, (bar going to the lengths of removing a persons stomach or liver or intestines etc )

You don't need to apologise for other peoples actions. But I do apreciate the sentiment I used to believe in evolution myself, however now knowing the faults in the logic I do not beleive in it anymore.

Yes Science is defined by observations and testable results... However this does not apply to evolution. Seriously, (I know you won't believe me), but this is what happens. Logic gets thrown out of the door, why else would such a theory be given 150yrs to attempt to prove itself? I am sure most, if not all theories are not given such leniency.

I do disagree with your final sentence, and I would ask that you read the entirety of this thread before repling to this thanks.

"The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."

As we know, it takes only one thing to disprove a theory... However I have given my own example of an evolutionary flaw, and offer you a gamut of faults of evolution for us to discuss. Choose at your own pleasure

hi again!

There is no special "leniency" given to the the ToE, that i ever heard of.Why would there be?

And especially from the other fields of science! Astrology or any other pseudoscience is given no respect at all. Pseudo science is an embarrassment and science in general is happy and eager to distance itself and debunk these things.

Evolution is accepted by, and supported very broadly by, all of the other hard sciences. i really dont think you could twease ToE out without blowing gaping craters in all of known science.

Also, you refer to the need for evolution to "prove itself".

If you mean that the theory should be proven, well, you do know no theory gets proven.

if you mean prove itself as in, be accepted as valid by the world scientific community, it certainly has done that.

Now for this..."The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."

and this..

As we know, it takes only one thing to disprove a theory... However I have given my own example of an evolutionary flaw, and offer you a gamut of faults of evolution for us to discuss. Choose at your own pleasure

Well, I believe I will respectfully decline to choose any of them.Not for lack of ability; I have my anatomy, physiology etc background, i do have a keen appreciation for these things. I dont remotely agree that any of those are "flaws", but its a swamp to go into a theo /evo debate on that level and I dont care to go wading.

Id much rather just discuss some more general concepts, like earlier, that abiogenesis is / is not part of the ToE, which I think we settled, didnt we?

Here are some simple general concepts, which really come before detailed stuff anyway.

If these problems are so big, and so obvious, then why, logically, would the world scientific community continue to support the ToE?

You are correct that in general, it takes but one good contrary fact to disprove a theory. The famous cambrian bunny would certainly crater an awful lot of scientific theory.

With these ideas you have to falsify the ToE, why do you think it it that nobody has run with one of them, and gone ahead and done just that, disproved the ToE once and for all?

There is no special "leniency" given to the the ToE, that i ever heard of.Why would there be?

And especially from the other fields of science! Astrology or any other pseudoscience is given no respect at all. Pseudo science is an embarrassment and science in general is happy and eager to distance itself and debunk these things.

Evolution is accepted by, and supported very broadly by, all of the other hard sciences. i really dont think you could twease ToE out without blowing gaping craters in all of known science.

Also, you refer to the need for evolution to "prove itself".

If you mean that the theory should be proven, well, you do know no theory gets proven.

if you mean prove itself as in, be accepted as valid by the world scientific community, it certainly has done that.

Now for this..."The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."

and this..As we know, it takes only one thing to disprove a theory... However I have given my own example of an evolutionary flaw, and offer you a gamut of faults of evolution for us to discuss. Choose at your own pleasure Well, I believe I will respectfully decline to choose any of them.Not for lack of ability; I have my anatomy, physiology etc background, i do have a keen appreciation for these things. I dont remotely agree that any of those are "flaws", but its a swamp to go into a theo /evo debate on that level and I dont care to go wading.

Id much rather just discuss some more general concepts, like earlier, that abiogenesis is / is not part of the ToE, which I think we settled, didnt we?

Here are some simple general concepts, which really come before detailed stuff anyway.

If these problems are so big, and so obvious, then why, logically, would the world scientific community continue to support the ToE?

You are correct that in general, it takes but one good contrary fact to disprove a theory. The famous cambrian bunny would certainly crater an awful lot of scientific theory.

With these ideas you have to falsify the ToE, why do you think it it that nobody has run with one of them, and gone ahead and done just that, disproved the ToE once and for all?

If you do not wish to "wade" into the debate then I am curious to why you are here? If you wish to address a more general look at human psycology you can make your own thread.

As I said before Evolution has been given 150 yrs to provide irrefutable evidence of itself. It has thus far only come up with suppositions and inference which is not science it is imagination. I will as you this question again, do most any other theories get given 150 years to provide evidence?....

Since you don't wish to answer this question I will answer you, (as far as I know), no other theory, hypothesis has been given such an inordinate amount of time to get its evidence sorted.

You haven't responded to my challenge to your statement. Please don't dodge this issue. I have just shown you a case where the known data doesn't support evolution, which lays waste to your claim that

"The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."

I see no point in going further if you can't admit that this statment is not fact, rather you're own opinion, and can be influencing how you atempt to look at this situation.

A wise person once said, "what is popular isn't always right, and what is right isn't always popular"... So believing evolution on the basis of the masses is not a credible nor scientific basis of "faith"

However I will attempt to answer your question of psycology refering to how people think, (which really has no relevance to the science behind evolution).

1. Evolution has pervaded the education system as fact. Children are being taught it as fact from the ground up, it creates a foundation of faith for evolution.

2. Due to this many scientists of this day have based their entire careers on evolution and for it to be proven wrong it would mean that most of the scientific world would be back to square 1, (in terms of a naturalistic verion of lifes creation)

3. Peer pressure anybody thinking differently to the "norm" is ridiculed. (I know I was told I am not a "good scientist", and other derogative terms MANY times in a debate on a Uni discusion board... Despite the fact that I refuted any and all claims they made and they couldn't prove evolution past variation.... Hmm

4. Nobody likes to be wrong. This is a fact, and you've proven it by attempting to dodge my refutation of your false statement. How many times do you hear of the downfalls of science? I am sure if you go onto a Science website you will not find, Pilt down man, Orce man, flipperpithicus, archeoraptor and other such fakes in the attempt for evidence for evolution.

Why? Because science needs to keep its intergity in "knowing all things"

Why else would some scientists be ignored, like Pasteur and Mendel, for having ideas that went against the "normal" established theories... Despite these two being true.

If you do not wish to "wade" into the debate then I am curious to why you are here? If you wish to address a more general look at human psycology you can make your own thread.

As I said before Evolution has been given 150 yrs to provide irrefutable evidence of itself. It has thus far only come up with suppositions and inference which is not science it is imagination. I will as you this question again, do most any other theories get given 150 years to provide evidence?....

Since you don't wish to answer this question I will answer you, (as far as I know), no other theory, hypothesis has been given such an inordinate amount of time to get its evidence sorted.

You haven't responded to my challenge to your statement. Please don't dodge this issue. I have just shown you a case where the known data doesn't support evolution, which lays waste to your claim that

"The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."

I see no point in going further if you can't admit that this statment is not fact, rather you're own opinion, and can be influencing how you atempt to look at this situation.A wise person once said, "what is popular isn't always right, and what is right isn't always popular"... So believing evolution on the basis of the masses is not a credible nor scientific basis of "faith"

However I will attempt to answer your question of psycology refering to how people think, (which really has no relevance to the science behind evolution).

1. Evolution has pervaded the education system as fact. Children are being taught it as fact from the ground up, it creates a foundation of faith for evolution.

2. Due to this many scientists of this day have based their entire careers on evolution and for it to be proven wrong it would mean that most of the scientific world would be back to square 1, (in terms of a naturalistic verion of lifes creation)

3. Peer pressure anybody thinking differently to the "norm" is ridiculed. (I know I was told I am not a "good scientist", and other derogative terms MANY times in a debate on a Uni discusion board... Despite the fact that I refuted any and all claims they made and they couldn't prove evolution past variation.... Hmm

4. Nobody likes to be wrong. This is a fact, and you've proven it by attempting to dodge my refutation of your false statement. How many times do you hear of the downfalls of science? I am sure if you go onto a Science website you will not find, Pilt down man, Orce man, flipperpithicus, archeoraptor and other such fakes in the attempt for evidence for evolution.

Why? Because science needs to keep its intergity in "knowing all things"

Why else would some scientists be ignored, like Pasteur and Mendel, for having ideas that went against the "normal" established theories... Despite these two being true.

As I said before I am not here to debate human psycology.

I would like to know, before making any further comments on this topic if you now agree that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.

If you do not wish to "wade" into the debate then I am curious to why you are here? If you wish to address a more general look at human psycology you can make your own thread.

As I said before Evolution has been given 150 yrs to provide irrefutable evidence of itself. It has thus far only come up with suppositions and inference which is not science it is imagination. I will as you this question again, do most any other theories get given 150 years to provide evidence?....

Since you don't wish to answer this question I will answer you, (as far as I know), no other theory, hypothesis has been given such an inordinate amount of time to get its evidence sorted.

Ã‚Â You haven't responded to my challenge to your statement. Please don't dodge this issue. I have just shown you a case where the known data doesn't support evolution, which lays waste to your claim that

"The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."

I see no point in going further if you can't admit that this statment is not fact, rather you're own opinion, and can be influencing how you atempt to look at this situation.A wise person once said, "what is popular isn't always right, and what is right isn't always popular"... So believing evolution on the basis of the masses is not a credible nor scientific basis of "faith"

However I will attempt to answer your question of psycology refering to how people think, (which really has no relevance to the science behind evolution).

1. Evolution has pervaded the education system as fact. Children are being taught it as fact from the ground up, it creates a foundation of faith for evolution.

2. Due to this many scientists of this day have based their entire careers on evolution and for it to be proven wrong it would mean that most of the scientific world would be back to square 1, (in terms of a naturalistic verion of lifes creation)

3. Peer pressure anybody thinking differently to the "norm" is ridiculed. (I know I was told I am not a "good scientist", and other derogative terms MANY times in a debate on a Uni discusion board... Despite the fact that I refuted any and all claims they made and they couldn't prove evolution past variation.... Hmm

4. Nobody likes to be wrong. This is a fact, and you've proven it by attempting to dodge my refutation of your false statement. How many times do you hear of the downfalls of science? I am sure if you go onto a Science website you will not find, Pilt down man, Orce man, flipperpithicus, archeoraptor and other such fakes in the attempt for evidence for evolution.

Why? Because science needs to keep its intergity in "knowing all things"Ã‚Â

Why else would some scientists be ignored, like Pasteur and Mendel, for having ideas that went against the "normal" established theories... Despite these two being true.

As I said before I am not here to debate human psycology.

Earlier I said I wanted to look at some general concepts. As for debate, sometimes that is fun and productive, other times it is not.

I was disappointed to see that the talk of 'false statements', "dodging" etc has already been introduced. Unfair, unkind and untrue; but let it go.

Regarding science, i see this...

The statement that "science needs to keep its intergity (sic) in "knowing all things" which is so wrong, on so many levels, i am not even going to bother with it.

I see that despite all, you still refer to theories as being something that can be demonstrated to be "true", showing that discussion of science, as it really is, is not going to happen.

That a theory is supposed to provide 'irrefutable evidence".

And 'proof"....... they couldn't prove evolution past variation

This shows such a complete lack of the most basic understanding of what science is and how it works. Talk about going back to square one! Im not up for it, you can do it on your own, or continue to savage ideas that you invented yourself.

Recall my idea of looking at general concepts first. I see that I had the right idea, in a that it showed discussion of your challenge is pointless.

What you have done with your grand ad hom of all who work in science, how they cannot be honest, cannot do good work, serves to set it up so that your ideas cannot be wrong, and science cannot be right.

So why indeed would i wade into a swamp of discussing specifics? Anything I could possibly cite is already wrong, and you have Almighty God on your "side".

There is one ally on your side, tho, that you may not even have considered.Perhaps you will look to it, and perhaps it will benefit you. Its your youth.

A lot of people go to University pretty full of themselves, thinking that they know it all already. If you are 24, Im only a little older, and I certainly have had my own faults in that regard. i suppose every culture has some sort of saying about how the older you get, the more you realize how much you dont know. Your mind isnt "fossilized" yet. i hope you will try learning a bit more before the mineralization sets in permanently.

Anyhow, enough. i dont think i want to continue with this, as i am just not going to do a discussion on the level that you are set up for.

Earlier I said I wanted to look at some general concepts. As for debate, sometimes that is fun and productive, other times it is not.

I was disappointed to see that the talk of 'false statements', "dodging" etc has already been introduced. Unfair, unkind and untrue; but let it go.

Regarding science, i see this...

The statement that "science needs to keep its intergity (sic) in "knowing all things" which is so wrong, on so many levels, i am not even going to bother with it.

I see that despite all, you still refer to theories as being something that can be demonstrated to be "true", showing that discussion of science, as it really is, is not going to happen.

That a theory is supposed to provide 'irrefutable evidence".

And 'proof"....... they couldn't prove evolution past variation

This shows such a complete lack of the most basic understanding of what science is and how it works. Talk about going back to square one! Im not up for it, you can do it on your own, or continue to savage ideas that you invented yourself.Recall my idea of looking at general concepts first. I see that I had the right idea, in a that it showed discussion of your challenge is pointless.

What you have done with your grand ad hom of all who work in science, how they cannot be honest, cannot do good work, serves to set it up so that your ideas cannot be wrong, and science cannot be right.

So why indeed would i wade into a swamp of discussing specifics? Anything I could possibly cite is already wrong, and you have Almighty God on your "side".There is one ally on your side, tho, that you may not even have considered.Perhaps you will look to it, and perhaps it will benefit you. Its your youth.A lot of people go to University pretty full of themselves, thinking that they know it all already. If you are 24, Im only a little older, and I certainly have had my own faults in that regard. i suppose every culture has some sort of saying about how the older you get, the more you realize how much you dont know. Your mind isnt "fossilized" yet. i hope you will try learning a bit more before the mineralization sets in permanently.

Anyhow, enough. i dont think i want to continue with this, as i am just not going to do a discussion on the level that you are set up for.

Lol you say it like I don't know anything I am quite happy with what I know and don't know. Yes the world is a complex place that holds many mysteries, this is why I find evolution illiogical as it cannot account for such complexity, which I have demonstrated with the symbiotic relationship between human organs.

Please don't have a go at me, and make me look like a "bad guy", because I burst your bubble and showed, (with evidence), your statement is not as fortified as you had hoped.

You said this...

""The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."

I have provided evidence, (aka data), that goes against this statement, (which you do not wish to counter), therefore your statement is shown to be, (as I said before), not fact rather, your own opinion.... (Which you are entitled to, just realise it is an opinion )... However fobbing it off, and sweeping it under the table is not a sound debate tactic, nor is it enhancing the learning process.

I never said I had God on my side, I would like to think so. However being omnipresent I would assume that God is on everybody's side

I never said Science cannot be right? (Please don't put your words into my mouth)

In fact, I was using Science to give evidence for my statements, so if I am saying that Science is wrong then I am saying I am wrong too, which is pretty illogical and self refuting.

Let me educate you on this issue. SCIENCE, (true Science), is about finding the TRUTH about the natural world. Following the evidence to wherever it leads... Wether that be a naturalistic conclusion or a supernatural one.... Hence what people call Religion vs Science is a down-right fallacy. Science has no, (or shouldn't have) any preconcieved notions nor prejudice it is basically a method of gaining insight from observations and experiments nothing more.

However this is semantics and is a deviation from the evidence, (or lack thereof)...

A theory MUST always have evidence to support it, if you have no evidence to support, (or even prove something happened) then you cannot say the theory is credible.. Or would you rather, anything is considered credible without evidence? (welcome to imagination land )

For example I can say to you, "I have been to the moon", now normally anybody would ask for evidence of this... If I provided none then it would be assumed that I am making it up. However if I had a photo or video of me on the moon, that evidnence will corroborate my statement and it will be regarded as true.

Now how many theories are out there, that are widely regarded as truth (or close to it), that has no evidence for it? (This is an actual question)

The idea I "savaged" myself, came from the evidence. It was from using logic and seeing how a symbiotic relationship between organs, and seeing how all the parts are needed for the system to work. Hence each part had to be designed at the same time and place for the organism to survive. This is not a hard concept. And your attempts to make this look stupid goes to show that you cannot disprove this.

If you wish to sweep this under the rug, do so, just realise you need evidence for your statements before you proclaim them as fact.

Actually, it is Phil. And no attempt to say it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, without providing validation for your assertion, can change that fact. In other words, simply saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t render it so. SCIENCE, (true Science), IS about finding the TRUTH about the natural world, and the more-than-natural world (i.e. love, the conscience, the Laws of Logic, the Laws of Mathematics etcetera). Its about following the evidence wherever it leads... Whether that be a naturalistic conclusion or a other-than-natural one....

God says that he cannot be tested. Deuteronomy 6:16 and Matthew 4:7. That means the God is not to be looked for scientifically.

Again, you are misinterpreting (whether Ã¢â‚¬Å“intentionallyÃ¢â‚¬Â or not) the scripture; and this ripping of the context out of the verse will not help you in either case. You may want to go back and actually read what is being said, and what they are actually talking about before you make such fallacious assertions.

From what I have seen in my few years of info gathering on this subject, (I am only 24 though..wink), is that for a "SCIENTIFIC" theory. Evolution has way too many holes and doubts and points of inference and not facts. I don't really see why they persist in calling it a theory, since it can be dis-proven via many conventional modern scientific ways...

There are many points I haven't included, and I will go into these points in depth later.

Thoughts anyone?

1. because they are religiousThe more religious are those who don't even realise that they are religious

2. they tend to fall for fallaciesit is because of 1) and they fail to realise that they are religious, that they fall for fallacies without their own awareness.

3. who's the winnerthis is actually point 2), but I'd like to put some emphasis on to make it special point. They tend to believe that who made the last post shall be the winner. So repeat the same argument or even nonsense endlessly such everyone lost his interest in discuss, then they think that they are the winners just because they made the last post.

The chemists have shown that the necessary basic building blocks of life (amino acids, nucleotides, phosphates etc) can form suprisingly easily, so easily that they are found in the cold of space. That is the bottom up approach.

Ventner et al are using the top down approach, starting with fully formed life and seeing the minimum requirements.

There is the hole between them, and chemical evolution (though not the cosmological kind) will fit in there. Some work has alreqady been done on this, RNA has been seen to evolve in a test-tube, and you are right to say that chemical evolution is part of evolution. The problem is, until the chemists have worked out there part, we won't know what evolution happened.

As a sceptic, I'm happy with the 'don't know' answer, but I would never accept an answer of 'don't know, therefore we will never know'. The evidence we have so far has hit no barriers, we just need time to either find the answer of find a definite barrier. To say that this means a creator has to be involved is a non-sequitor though.

The chemists have shown that the necessary basic building blocks of life (amino acids, nucleotides, phosphates etc) can form suprisingly easily, so easily that they are found in the cold of space.Ã‚Â That is the bottom up approach.

I have seen no evidence of amino acids, nucleotides or phosphates simply forming (although IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re attempting to say what they formed surprisingly easily from either). Maybe a little more elucidation on your part should be forth coming on your above assertion.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called protenoid microspheres, which show many of the basic characteristics of 'life'

Such radioactive beach sand provides sufficient energy to generate organic molecules, such as amino acids and sugars from acetonitrile in water. Radioactive monazite also releases soluble phosphate into regions between sand-grains, making it biologically "accessible". Thus amino acids, sugars and soluble phosphates can all be simultaneously produced,